The development of a
human rights policy in the EU has been a long and often undocumented
journey. The sectoral approach of the Paris Treaty establishing the
European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1951 had an economic and functional
intention, lacking a declaration of fundamental rights, as seen in national
constitutions. It was not until the 2000 Nice Summit that the European
Union first established a written charter, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights,
explicitly stating and guaranteeing human rights in the European Union.
Documented EU human rights policy before 2000 can be seen primarily in two
ways:
1. Internally, through
case-law from the European Court of Justice
(ECJ)
2. Externally, through
enlargement and trade/development policy
The Charter was an
attempt to formally consolidate and solidify not only the EU’s internal and
external human rights policies, but also material from a wide array of other
human rights initiatives, such as common institutional traditions (from national
constitutions), various awareness conventions, and international activist groups
and NGOs.
Overview
The objective of this paper is to establish
an effective analysis of the European Union’s human rights policy. After
establishing the background of human rights policy within the EU, the
application of Article 23 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights through
internal case-law, trade policies, and enlargement is illustrated using
historical case-studies. The application portion of this paper will
examine a court case from the French national government, the EU’s trade policy
with the Middle East, and the issues surrounding the accession of Turkey into
the EU. After examining these three cases, the human rights issues in the
Balkans will be discussed to elucidate the shortcomings of EU policy and the
initiatives the EU is enacting to correct this limitation. Based on
analysis from these four cases, conclusions regarding the effectiveness of human
rights policy will be discussed.
Background of EU Human Rights Policy
European Court of Justice
The legitimacy of the ECJ to uphold EU
legislation is a necessary component of effective human rights policy. The
history of its increase in power is worth noting. Throughout the 1960s and
1970s, the ECJ’s location in Luxembourg, far from the political fray in Brussels
and Strasburg, prevented it from becoming a strong body of the EU. Yet,
throughout that time the court methodically built case-law that would lead to
its surge in influence in the 1980s. The two most significant developments
of the court during this time period were direct effect and supremacy.
These twin pillars clarified the relationship between the national and EU legal
orders.
The
landmark decision involving direct effect occurred in 1963 in a case called
Van Gend en Loos. In the case, a Dutch transport firm brought a
complaint against Dutch customs for increasing the duty on a product imported
from Germany. The firm argued that the Dutch authorities had breached a
clause in the original EU treaty, which prohibited member states from
introducing new duties in the common market. The Court agreed with the
firm and declared that any “unconditionally worded treaty provision being self
sufficient and legally complete” did not require further intervention at the
national level and applied directly to
individuals.
The case Costa v. ENEL in 1964 gave the Court the chance to establish the
supremacy of EU law. In the decision, the Court stated that “every
national court must apply Community law in its entirety and must accordingly set
aside any provisions of national law which may conflict with it.” The
supremacy of the ECJ was established and increased the power of the Court
immensely. Both of these developments were imperative for the influential
position the Court has taken in human rights issues.
ECJ/ECHR human rights case-law
In 1948, the United
Nations’ “Declaration of Human Rights” laid the framework for the human rights
initiatives for the following fifty years. Its aim for “all human rights
for all” served as a cornerstone for global public awareness of basic
rights. Though a step in the right direction, much was still needed in
order to see rights realized and protected. With an objective of
“collective enforcement” of the rights stated in the UN declaration, the Council
of Europe held the “Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms” in 1950. Although the complex system of enforcement
established at this convention proved insufficient, the stated human rights
principles and eventual success of the Convention’s European Court of Human
Rights (ECHR) greatly influenced the writers of the Fundamental Charter in Nice
fifty years later.
An important distinction is that the European
Convention (ECHR) is a text from the Council of Europe, which is made up of over
40 European countries, including Russia. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights,
however, is a text from the European Union, which currently has 15 Member
States. Also, the scope of the protection provided by these two texts is
different. The Convention of the Council of Europe relates solely to civil and
political rights, while the Charter of the European Union covers additional
aspects, such as the right to good administration, workers' social rights, and
bioethics. In addition, the Charter covers those political rights of Union
citizens that, by definition, cannot be included in the Convention of the
Council of Europe.
Working alongside the Council’s ECHR, the ECJ
(established in the EC Treaty in 1957) produced a system of guarantees of
fundamental rights. The combined case-law of these two international
courts established written rights for Europeans and later helped form the Nice
Charter. In 1997, the Treaty of Amsterdam revised the Treaty of the
European Union (TEU), binding the EU to “respect fundamental rights, as
guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms…and as they result from constitutional traditions common to Member
States.” The Treaty also incorporated previous ECHR case-law into the
ECJ’s body and established the ECJ’s jurisdiction on human rights within the
EU. Member States violating human rights in “serious and persistent” ways
were subject to loss of Treaty privileges.
The EU and
the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)
The OSCE, originally established in 1975 as a forum for diplomatic
consultation, has developed into a regional collective security instrument that
ties respect for human rights, referred to as the "human dimension," closely to
the maintenance of security. There are 55 participating states in the
OSCE, including all 15 Member States of the EU. The Charter of Paris for a New
Europe, signed in November 1990, codified the guiding principles governing the
"human dimension." It was countersigned by the President of the European
Commission and is the pedestal upon which the OSCE orients its activities. The
principle lines of the charter are prevention, negotiation and monitoring of the
implementation of undertakings subscribed to by its 55 members. Since
1989, the European Community (and subsequently the EU) has been represented at
OSCE meetings by a representative of the country holding the EU Council
Presidency as well as a representative of the European Commission. The EU itself
has played a significant role in the process of adaptation, which the OSCE
embarked upon in response to the challenges of the post-Cold War period.
The EU Member States contribute some two thirds of the OSCE budget. Because of
the significant role played by the EU in many OSCE countries, through its
Agreements and assistance programs (some in conflict areas), the OSCE
increasingly recognizes the "added value" which the EU can bring to sustaining
political stability and democracy building in the OSCE region and the
contribution to conflict prevention and conflict resolution.
Enlargement
The EU has already experienced a series of successful enlargements. After
the six founding members, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and
the Netherlands, established the Union with the Treaty of Paris (1951),
the treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (1951), and the
Treaty of Rime establishing the European Economic Community (1957), the EU
has undergone four successive enlargements. The first including Denmark,
Ireland and the United Kingdom in 1973, the second adding Greece in 1981, the
third adding Portugal and Spain in 1986, and the fourth adding Austria,
Finland, and Sweden in 1995. However, the forthcoming eastward expansion
is unique. Such an expansion would increase the area of the EU by 34% and
increase the population by 105 million, not to mention the extensive diversity
of the states applying for membership. In all, enlargement will expand the
bloc's population by about one-third, though its gross domestic product will
rise by barely 5%.
Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, as EU Eastward
expansion appeared more imminent, enlargement policy became another area in
which human rights goals and ideals were documented. Drawing from the
ECJ/ECHR case-law and from commonalities in the Member States’ constitutions,
the EU formulated requirements for admission to the Union. As seen in the
PHARE program, the Europe Agreements, and the acquis communitaire, human
rights gained importance as a pre-accession requirement. The 1993
Copenhagen Criteria, which outlined specific steps for
admission:
(1) be a stable democracy, respecting human rights, the
rule of law, and the protection of
minorities;
(2) have a
functioning market economy;
(3) adopt the common rules, standards
and policies that make up the body of EU law.
By outlining
human rights requirements for countries wanting to join the Union (in the first
point), the EU (somewhat inadvertently) created human rights policies that
previously had not been documented officially. The EU assists these
countries in taking on EU laws, and provides a range of financial assistance to
improve their infrastructure and economy.
Figure 1: A map of the current members and
the official applicant states. Note that Turkey is not considered in the
same group as the others because of a number of difficulties in the negotiations
(many of these issues are related to human rights).
Trade/Development Policy and International
Institutions
Beginning in the mid-1970s, specific foreign trade
agreements (e.g. Lomé Convention/Cotonou Agreement, Mediterranean agreements,
etc.) mentioned human rights as conditions and requirements. Delors’
European Social Charter in the late 1980s, though powerless in actuality,
promoted certain workers’ rights and later influenced the Nice Charter. In
1991, the European Council Declaration on Human Rights at Luxembourg committed
the EU to respect human rights as fundamental to internal cooperation and
external policies. Later, in 1993, the TEU’s Common Foreign Security
Policy (CFSP) required “respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms” and
its Development Policy stated the importance of “respecting human rights and
fundamental freedoms.” The EU also proudly supported the agenda and
program of activist organizations, institutions, and conferences such as the
World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna in 1993 and the World Summit for
Social Development in Copenhagen in 1995.
Since 1992, the EU has required
a clause respecting human rights and democracy as “essential elements” in
bilateral agreements. The terminology of such human rights promotion can
be traced to the UN Declaration on Human Rights in 1948. It is important
to emphasize that the EU’s current mechanism for promoting human rights in its
over 120 agreements with non-EU countries concentrates on “promoting social
development through incentives and capacity-building measures,” rather than on
sanctions. Because many non-member nations desire to establish bilateral
trade agreements, the EU maintains a strong position for promoting human rights
internationally.
The Charter that resulted from the Nice Summit in
2000 was a long overdue codification and simplification of the many human rights
steps that had been taken over the last fifty years. Incorporating common
institutional traditions from the Member States’ constitutions with the lengthy
case-law of the EJC/ECHR and the declarations, ideals, and requirements of
international institutes and EU trade/development/enlargement policies, the Nice
Charter authors created a unique body of articles, specifically and explicitly
guaranteeing human rights to the citizens of the European
Union.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
The
Preamble of the Charter helps to reveal the scope of the application of this
document. “This Charter reaffirms, with due regard for the powers and
tasks of the Community and the Union and the principle of subsidiarity, the
rights as they result, in particular, from the constitutional traditions and
international obligations common to the Member States, the Treaty on European
Union, the Community Treaties, the European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Social Charters adopted by the
Community and by the Council of Europe and the case law of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities and of the European Court of Human Rights.”
The Charter lays down specific procedures to be followed in drafting
proposals. Any new law or instrument that has anything to do with fundamental
rights must now include a formal statement confirming that: “This act respects
the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognized in particular by
the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.” If it relates to a
specific Charter provision, the proposal may include a second sentence
confirming that it respects the principle concerned, or making reference to the
relevant Article.
The final version of the charter is divided into six
chapters, each addressing a distinct genre of human rights. The chapters
are entitled: Dignity, Freedom, Equality, Solidarity, Citizen’s Rights and
Justice, and together they outline fifty separate articles. A case study
tracing the application of a specific article of the Charter facilitates a
better understanding of the many manifestations of the EU human rights policy in
general. The analysis will focus on Article 23, which addresses the issue
of equality between men and women.
Article 23
Equality between men and women must be ensured in all areas, including
employment, work, and pay.
The principles of equality shall not prevent the maintenance or adoption
of measures providing for specific advantages in favor of the
under-represented sex.
The first portion of the
article is based on previous articles from the EC Treaty, the European Social
Charter, the Community Charter on the Rights of Workers, and Council Directive
76/207/EEC.[1] The second section of the article is a
reworking of an article of the EC Treaty.[2]
Application of the Charter (Article 23)
Internal
Applications: ECJ and French National
Law
Once Community laws are established, national governments are required to adjust
their laws accordingly. However, in certain situations, the application of
Community law is not entirely clear. In such cases, national courts can request
a preliminary ruling from the ECJ to receive “authoritative guidance” in making
a
decision.
With respect to gender equality, we refer to a case that concerned the
implementation of equal treatment for men and women in the matter of social
security. The case involved a French schoolteacher, Henri Mouflin, who had
applied to claim his pension rights so he could take care of his wife, who was
sick with an incurable illness. The application was initially approved,
but then later Henri was removed from the pension list when the Minister of
Education informed him that the policy was reserved exclusively for female civil
servants. Mr. Mouflin appealed the order, and the French national court
turned to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling. The ECJ ruled that the French
policy violated Community law on gender equality. French precedents were
adjusted and Mr. Mouflin was awarded his pension.
Trade and Development Applications: EU trade with the Middle East
When a non-EU nation with a record of human rights violations
begins negotiations for a bilateral trade agreement, the EU makes use of NGO’s
and other international organizations such as the UN to understand the status of
human rights policy within the non-member country. Based on the
information, the Commission publishes a report on the improvements required of
the nation. These requirements can be met either before the agreement is
made or by a deadline after the trade agreement. The Commission then
continually monitors the status of the nation. Based on these reports, the
EU uses both aid for development and trade agreements to promote human
rights.
EU development programs are centralized within the European
Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR). Since 1994, the EIDHR
has had access to a budget of around 1 billion euros per year for actions in the
field of development. Generally positive, these measures bring an added or
additional value to certain Community programs and to the CFSP. The EIDHR
invests almost 30% of their annual budget towards development in the Middle
East. In order to guarantee a long-term approach to enhance its impact,
the development of EIDHR strategies must take account of four priorities. They
are identified in terms of themes or issues to be tackled in the medium or long
term.
strengthening democracy, good governance and the rule of law,
focusing on cooperation with civil society (to promote political pluralism, a
free media, a well-functioning justice system), and strengthening civil
society.
abolishing the death penalty , an area in which the EU plays a
leading role in the world.
combating torture and impunity, including the establishment of
international tribunals and criminal courts, where the EU focuses on
preventive measures such as educating the police.
combating racism and discrimination, where the priorities are
political and civil rights - measures that complement the other Community
instruments. (The last three themes are also clearly defined in the European
Union Charter of Fundamental Rights).
EU trade relations with the Middle East are conducted with both regional and
bilateral agreements. The major bilateral agreement pertinent to several
countries in the Middle East is the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. After
20 years of increasingly intensive bilateral trade and development cooperation
between the European Union, the 15 Member States and its 12 Mediterranean
Partners, the Conference of EU and Mediterranean Foreign Ministers in Barcelona
(27-28 November 1995) marked the start into a new "partnership" phase of the
relationship including bilateral and multilateral or regional cooperation (hence
called Barcelona Process or, in general, Euro-Mediterranean Partnership).
The 12 Mediterranean Partners, situated in the Southern and Eastern
Mediterranean are Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, the
Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Cyprus and Malta; Libya currently
has observer status at certain meetings.
The Barcelona Declaration
adopted at the Barcelona Conference expresses the 27 partners’ intention to:
Establish a common Euro-Mediterranean area of peace and stability based on
fundamental principles including respect for human rights and democracy
(political and security partnership),
· Create an area of
shared prosperity through the progressive establishment of a free-trade area
between the EU and its Partners and among the Mediterranean Partners themselves,
accompanied by substantial EU financial support for economic transition in the
Partners and for the social and economic consequences of this reform process
(economic and financial partnership), and
Develop human resources, promote understanding between cultures and
unification of the peoples in the Euro-Mediterranean region as well as to
develop free and flourishing civil societies (social, cultural and human
partnership).
The first point aims at improving the living and
working conditions and at increasing employment opportunities in particular with
regards to women. This cooperation will essentially concentrate on the most
disadvantaged regions and areas whose population has been displaced. It will be
achieved through different types of supporting schemes in order to improve
living conditions, development of employment and production sectors, and support
for training.
For Middle Eastern countries with unique
circumstances, the EU generally uses bilateral trade agreements to develop human
rights policy. The EU’s recent interactions with Iran provide a clear
example of the importance of human rights—and more specifically Article 23—in
external affairs. In 1998, the Council asked the Commission to establish
contacts within Iran to explore the possibility of cooperation between the two
parties. At that time, there were no contractual agreements between the
states, but the newly elected Iranian President had identified the establishment
of such agreements as an important policy objective. After reviewing the
situation, the Commission released a communiqué in February of 2001 that
outlined the “challenges to cooperation” that needed to be remedied before the
EU would enter into a trade agreement with Iran. One of the first
challenges identified was a human rights concern, specifically the position of
women in society. In an effort to address and discuss their complaints,
the Commission recommended more contact between the two parties through
dialogues and working groups.
Enlargement Applications: Turkey’s Application to the EU
Between
the realm of internal and external relations, the EU’s special situation with
applicant countries (through enlargement negotiations) necessitates
implementation of EU human rights policy that is decidedly unique. Turkey
provides a noteworthy example of the development of human rights policy,
especially gender equality issues. The most important event in EU-Turkey
relations was the Helsinki European Council’s recognition of Turkey as a
candidate state for accession to the EU in December 1999. The Council’s
conclusions state that Turkey is a candidate state destined to join the Union on
the basis of the same criteria as other candidate States. In response, the
Turkish government created the National Program for the Adoption of the Acquis’
(NPAA), to begin the process of integrating EU law. Among the 90 new laws
and 89 amendments to existing legislation contained in the NPAA, many deal with
gender equality issues.
In the short term the Turkish Government intends
to:
Reinforce in the Constitution the principle that men and women have equal
rights;
Enact the Draft Turkish Civil Code embodying improvements in gender
equality;
Complete the legal arrangements on abolishing the term “head of the
family.”
In the medium term the Turkish Government intends to:
Make the necessary arrangements for shifting the burden of proof in cases
of sex discrimination to the employer;
Complete the legal arrangements on paid maternity leave and parental
leave.
These initiatives represent extremely significant
improvements in gender equality for a country that has not had a strong record
regarding these issues. In response to Turkey’s new legislation, the
Commission recently identified Turkey as one of the 29 countries upon which to
focus a limited number of thematic priorities, including support for human
rights education and gender equality. This positive incentive approach of
investment in response to efforts to promote human rights is representative of
the EU strategy on human rights in the realm of enlargement.
In the past
few days, issues surrounding the accession of Turkey have been prevalent.
The leader of Turkey’s ruling party, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, said negotiations for
accession should begin next year and not in July 2005 as France and German
propose. The main strategic reason for this assertiveness is that if
negotiations stall, Turkey would need to convince 25 members including a hostile
Cyprus instead of the current 15. The newly elected government recently
submitted a second package of reforms designed to prevent torture and to expand
freedoms, and hopes to rush them through parliament before the EU summit
meeting. This forceful strategy has also led to backlash from several key
EU leaders. Former French President and current President of the European
Convention Valery Giscard recently said that “Turkey’s entry into the EU would
be the end of Europe.” Such conflict means that Turkey’s human rights
status will come under even more scrutiny in the coming months.
Policy Limitations
Issues in the
Balkans
The greatest challenge to EU human rights policy came from the
Balkan area throughout the 1990s. Initially, the Yugoslav army fought an
unsuccessful war against Slovenia. Later that summer, Serbia launched a
war of territorial expansion in neighboring Croatia, which also had seceded from
the Yugoslav federation. The fighting in Croatia promoted the EU to
convene a peace conference in The Hauge, which moved to Geneva after several
failures. In Geneva, an EU-UN peace plan for Bosnia was produced.
Despite the peace protocol, on April 6, 1992, the Bosnian Serbs launched
a campaign of aggression against Bosnia with the siege of Sarajevo and the
ethnic cleansing of the Drina River valley and the Bosnian Krajina (north and
northwest parts of the country). The Bosnian government, headed by Alija
Izetbegovic, was ill prepared to defend the country with no army and only a
poorly equipped territorial defense force. During the next three and a
half years, Bosnian Serb forces, with the support of Milosevic in Belgrade, laid
waste to large parts of Bosnia, killing more than 200,000 civilians and forcing
half the population, two million people, to flee their homes. Tens of thousands
of women were systematically raped. Concentration camps were set up in Prijedor,
Omarska, Trnopolje, and other areas. Civilians were shot by snipers on a daily
basis in Sarajevo, a city left without heat, electricity, or water. The
devastating atrocities finally led to the establishment of the Contact Group
consisting of Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and the United States, and heavy
NATO bombardment of Serbian positions in August, 1995.
The
continuing issues in the Balkans show some of the shortcomings of the EU’s human
rights policy. In 1991 the then President of the European Community,
Jacque Delors, stated in reference to the conflict in the Balkans, “we do not
interfere in American affairs; we trust America will not interfere in European
affairs.” When the conflict escalated, to the embarrassment of the
European Commission, United States involvement became necessary. The
inability to pose as a significant military threat is only a shortcoming in the
most extreme cases. However, it is often those extreme cases that the
greatest human rights atrocities occur.
Future
Developments in EU Human Rights Policy
Common Security and Defense
Policy
The Common Foreign Security Policy (CFSP) was established as the
second pillar of the European Union in the 1993 Treaty on European Union signed
at Maastricht. A number of important changes were introduced in the Amsterdam
Treaty, which came into force in 1999, and since then there have been numerous
developments in CFSP. In response to the events in the Balkans, the EU has
agreed to embark on a Common European Security and Defense Policy (CESDP) within
the overall framework of the CFSP. The European Council at Laeken of 14-15
December 2001 adopted a declaration on the operational capability of the Common
Defense, officially recognizing that the Union is now capable of conducting some
crisis management operations. Interim structures established after the Amsterdam
treaty have become permanent. With the Nice Treaty, certain amendments to the
CFSP provisions of the treaty were agreed.
The Helsinki European Council
called on the Commission in December 1999 to set up a Rapid Reaction Facility as
part of its decisions on the creation of a European Security and Defense Policy
and remains the current manifestation of the Common Security and Defense
Policy. This mechanism is designed to enhance the EU's civilian capacity
to intervene fast and effectively in crisis situations in third countries. It
will provide the flexibility to mobilize Community instruments to be deployed
quickly, whenever necessary. Commissioner for External Relations Chris
Patten said:
"Conflict prevention and crisis management are at the heart
of the EU's Foreign and Security Policy agenda. The new Rapid Reaction Mechanism
will act as a catalyzer, allowing us to mobilize resources within hours or days
rather than weeks or months. We will now be in a better position to organize and
support the mobilization of Member States civilian experts (in areas such as
mine clearance, customs, mediation, training of police or judges) in crisis
situations. In times of urgent needs we cannot anymore afford the luxury to be
bogged down by bureaucratic constraints and deliver Community instruments with
unnecessary delays."
The main purpose of the Rapid Reaction
Mechanism (RRM) is to deliver these and other instruments as rapid stabilizers
and as precursors for eventual longer-term assistance. In the Balkans, the
Commission continues to deliver in the area of conflict prevention and
resolution. In the Presevo region of the Republic of Serbia, it fully and
speedily delivered on the promised assistance to the municipalities ranging from
renovation of schools in time for the new year, to repair to water and
sanitation system, and even the delivery of brand new garbage trucks and
equipment. The Commission is presently implementing a second phase of actions
with high impact and high visibility local employment schemes. These actions are
complemented by the EC overall assistance to Serbia, EC humanitarian assistance,
the CFSP related monitoring and confidence-building role of the other
international actors such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation. This
partnership is a good example of the integrated approach to conflict prevention
and human rights protection the EU wishes to advance. In the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, the Commission is also playing an important role in the
support of the peace agreement. Confidence building measures have been deployed
through the Rapid Reaction Mechanism immediately after the signing of the peace
agreement.
The success of the Rapid Reaction Mechanism has
increased interest in the promotion of EU common defense, though the issue of
Common Defense remains one of the most contentious issues in the EU. The
pooling of military resources within member states was one of the first
initiatives in the EU in 1950, when the European Defense Community was
formed. However, this pillar has experienced the least development
compared to economic and political union. Much of the current debate in
the European Council, Parliament, and Commission regards the direction the
Common Defense will take in the EU, and such path will have a large impact on
the future of the EU.
Conclusions
An analysis of the aforementioned cases illuminates
the strengths and weaknesses of the human rights policy in the EU.
Internally, the strength of federalism with respect to the court ensures
relatively effective development in human rights policy within the EU.
Additionally, the incentive of union-membership provides the EU with leverage to
enact slow but substantial human rights improvements in non-member
countries. However, the EU’s economic “carrot” offered by trade and
investment without the “stick” to enforce policies militarily, and the EU’s
aversion to punitive sanctions renders human rights development outside Europe
less effective. The events in the Balkans show the potential weakness of
an institution like the EU in times of escalated conflict. As EU leaders
debate the utility of Common Defense and accession of Turkey, the future of the
EU is in flux, a future that remains hinged on issues surrounding human
rights.
Bibliography
-
Alston, Phillip. “The EU and Human Rights” European University Institute,
Florence.
The
[1] More
specifically: Articles 2, 3(2), and 141(3) of the EC Treaty; Article 20 of the
revised European Social Charter of May 3, 1996; and Article 2(4) of the Council
Directive